Top Law Schools

The sample answers at the back of the book are about Property, Torts, ConLaw, etc, where choosing between rules, making policy arguments, etc. are obviously relevant.

But how can you use it on a CivPro exam?

It's useful for 1L generally. Probably a little late to benefit from it this semester, though.

ymmv wrote:It's useful for 1L generally. Probably a little late to benefit from it this semester, though.

I've read through it once and finished it recently. Forks, Twin Forks, One Fork determines where you take another Fork, etc.

It's just a matter of applying it to my exams.

Stylistics wrote:

ymmv wrote:It's useful for 1L generally. Probably a little late to benefit from it this semester, though.

I've read through it once and finished it recently. Forks, Twin Forks, One Fork determines where you take another Fork, etc.

It's just a matter of applying it to my exams.

So what is your question exactly.

ymmv wrote:

Stylistics wrote:

ymmv wrote:It's useful for 1L generally. Probably a little late to benefit from it this semester, though.

I've read through it once and finished it recently. Forks, Twin Forks, One Fork determines where you take another Fork, etc.

It's just a matter of applying it to my exams.

So what is your question exactly.

How can it help me on the relatively rigid, clear topic of CivPro?

It's not more clear than other areas. It's equally helpful in everything. PJ isn't clear and is gonna be on your test.

Res judicata and collateral estoppel will be too.

Stylistics wrote: How can it help me on the relatively rigid, clear topic of CivPro?

Civ Pro is neither of those.

BVest wrote:

Stylistics wrote: How can it help me on the relatively rigid, clear topic of CivPro?

Civ Pro is neither of those.

This. Have you looked at an exam? While there are parts of CivPro that are relatively rigid compared to other classes, the stuff you're going to get tested heavily on (e.g., Personal Jurisdiction, Erie) are anything but rigid.

It absolutely is - the doctrine is often harder to learn and more interconnected than other courses, but fundamentally applying that doctrine will require sorting through gray area facts.

Making arguments about what "minimum contacts" with a state are will look an awful lot like arguing about the reasonable person standard or the proper interpretation of a contract.

thesealocust wrote:It absolutely is - the doctrine is often harder to learn and more interconnected than other courses, but fundamentally applying that doctrine will require sorting through gray area facts.

Making arguments about what "minimum contacts" with a state are will look an awful lot like arguing about the reasonable person standard or the proper interpretation of a contract.

Yep, part of the art is knowing when to argue and when not to argue. This is something even lawyers struggle with. A case will generally involve laws that collectively have dozens of elements, but only a few of those elements will be at issue. Law school exams are purposefully written in order to have a disproportionate # of junk at issue. Not only is GTM applicable to civ pro, it's applicable to anything that is rule based. This could be an NFL game or the application of sharia law to Iran.

yeah, and even if the rule you know to apply is relatively obvious (e.g. motion to dismiss), the outcome depends on a variety of factors guided by overarching goals of civil procedure. these are your forks or whatever you want to call it. you decide which of these wins out: (a) efficiency in the court system or (b) right to have your case decided on the merits